BEIRUT — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “hello” to the Iranian foreign minister and her brief “businesslike” meeting with the Syrian foreign minister at the international conference on Iraq in Egypt have generated considerable international attention. I join those who see these two gestures as small but significant steps towards a more rational American foreign policy in the Middle East.
It is important to acknowledge when the United States does something sensible in the world, because this happens relatively rarely in the Middle East. In this case, Washington is showing important new strains of maturity, realism and composure that have long been absent from its arsenal. Whatever the reason for the slow revisions in American policy, the change is to be welcomed. Those to whom the United States says hello should respond with a gracious “and hello to you too, Ma’am,” so that simple courtesies can quickly move towards serious dialogue that leads to meaningful diplomatic negotiations for mutually satisfying policy changes on all sides.
The real significance of Rice and her staff’s assorted interactions with the Syrians and Iranians is not mainly about the impact on Iraq, but rather in affirming — in this case, at least — the ineffectiveness and futility of boycotts and sanctions as serious foreign policy tools. The change of policy towards Syria and Iran only highlights the continued nonsensical American-Israeli-European policy towards the elected government in Palestine, which has evolved into a national unity government comprising Fateh, Hamas and some key independents.
Rice met with the Palestinian finance minister in Washington a few weeks ago, but that was not a real change of policy; it was merely a slight of hand magician’s trick that did not change reality, but only fostered an optical illusion. The continued boycott of that part of the elected Palestinian government led by Hamas is not achieving anything useful, and is only making things worse for all, as pressures and resentments build up in Palestine and the tenuous cease-fire with Israel slowly collapses.
One country that has gone against the prevalent Israeli-American-European trend of boycotting the elected Palestinian government is Norway, which has maintained contacts with Hamas and the entire government for years. Norway is a very sensible place, run by thoughtful, reasonable people who are not prone to extremes in any direction. So I thought it was worthwhile finding out more from knowledgeable Norwegians, in and out of government, about their experience with the Palestinians and Hamas, and why they have remained in touch with Hamas and the elected government.
Several relevant points emerge from the Norwegian experience and perspective. In principle, the Oslo mindset says, contacts should be maintained with all relevant parties in a dispute, other than out and out criminals such as Al-Qaeda. Political groups who use violence but also represent real political constituencies should be engaged with a view to changing their policies ultimately, as Norway has done, for example, in mediating between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lanka government. Boycotting eliminates the possibility of prodding militant groups to evolve politically, and thus is not useful in principle.
In the case of Hamas and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is also the issue of balance in the demands of both sides. It is reasonable to ask the Palestinians to end the use of armed resistance, political violence and terror against civilians, but such an approach is not very credible or effective if it only punishes the political violence of one side.
In practical terms, the boycott of Hamas and the Hamas-led coalition government has failed, the thinking goes among Norwegians who follow this closely and know both sides intimately. The boycott has destroyed Palestinian institutions, increase poverty and hopelessness, radicalized elements of the population, badly damaged the internal Palestinian security situation, and made the ceasefire with Israel more vulnerable to breach and collapse. The boycott has steadily undercut Palestinian moderates, and is likely to fuel further extremism.
The integrity and credibility of the Palestinian government as a whole has declined, but Hamas as an organization remains strong, and may have become stronger in the past year, especially since forming the unity government that it had called for immediately after winning the elections in early 2006. Those in Norway who support the policy of engaging the Hamas-led government also sense that Hamas officials have moved forward in the past two years, towards an ultimate possible recognition of Israel, but this tentative trajectory would not continue if Hamas were boycotted totally. It would also move more quickly if Israel made reciprocal moves towards recognizing a viable Palestinian state, rather than only recognizing the PLO.
Finally, some Norwegians question the appropriateness of the United Nations’ slightly contradictory position towards the Hamas-led government — adhering to the boycott of Hamas by the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and UN) until the Palestinian government accepts the three principles laid down by the Quartet, while also meeting with some Hamas government officials. One problem with the UN adhering to the Quartet position is the fact that the UN Security Council did not take up this issue, nor did the UN make relevant demands of Israel to balance the Quartet demands of the Palestinians.
The Norwegian position is all the more useful to learn from in view of the apparent slow shift in American policy towards speaking with Syria and Iran.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, and co-laureate of the 2006 Pax Christi International Peace Award.
Copyright ©2007 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 05 May 2007
Word Count: 885
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757